[dabigv13]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...qus_thread

An important study validating use of saliva for PCR testing as opposed to a nasopharyngeal swab.

We have been using expectorated phlegm for PCR testing for some tests for the past several weeks because of a lack of swabs, which is a brobdingnagian problem nationwide for ramping up testing. This was internally validated apparently but nothing published on it. Also we were not using plain old saliva which is even easier than having to teach a patient to give a good expectorant sample.

Saliva samples would obviate need for swabs which are in short supply and also allows at home sample collection to reduce PPE usage. 

This is very good news that opens up some helpful options for the future, if our leaders can be convinced that developing the infrastructure for good tracking and quarantine is important to save lives and the economy.

[dabigv13]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...qus_thread

An important study validating use of saliva for PCR testing as opposed to a nasopharyngeal swab.

We have been using expectorated phlegm for PCR testing for some tests for the past several weeks because of a lack of swabs, which is a brobdingnagian problem nationwide for ramping up testing. This was internally validated apparently but nothing published on it. Also we were not using plain old saliva which is even easier than having to teach a patient to give a good expectorant sample.

Saliva samples would obviate need for swabs which are in short supply and also allows at home sample collection to reduce PPE usage. 

This is very good news that opens up some helpful options for the future, if our leaders can be convinced that developing the infrastructure for good tracking and quarantine is important to save lives and the economy.

[Griffins78]

Agree - this would be great news - to have an easier and more effective test, that could be done at home.

[Griffins78]

Agree - this would be great news - to have an easier and more effective test, that could be done at home.

[dabigv13]

Small plastic collection cups are plentiful and easy to make. Trace via cellphone data if you can figure out the privacy issues.  If you've been recently exposed to a positive patient, you spit in the cup and drop it off at a regional lab. Next day you get a phone call with your results. And then you have to figure out a good quarantine system, but idle hotels may welcome the business. Combine it with universal masking and you can probably run a 90% economy.

[dabigv13]

Small plastic collection cups are plentiful and easy to make. Trace via cellphone data if you can figure out the privacy issues.  If you've been recently exposed to a positive patient, you spit in the cup and drop it off at a regional lab. Next day you get a phone call with your results. And then you have to figure out a good quarantine system, but idle hotels may welcome the business. Combine it with universal masking and you can probably run a 90% economy.

[BostonCard]

Small plastic collection cups are plentiful and easy to make. Trace via cellphone data if you can figure out the privacy issues.  If you've been recently exposed to a positive patient, you spit in the cup and drop it off at a regional lab. Next day you get a phone call with your results. And then you have to figure out a good quarantine system, but idle hotels may welcome the business. Combine it with universal masking and you can probably run a 90% economy.

I think they would have to be spit into tubes that had chemical to stabilize the viral RNA.

https://www.dnagenotek.com/US/products/c...E-100.html

That one is for mRNA but would probably stabilize viral RNA as well.

BC

[BostonCard]

Small plastic collection cups are plentiful and easy to make. Trace via cellphone data if you can figure out the privacy issues.  If you've been recently exposed to a positive patient, you spit in the cup and drop it off at a regional lab. Next day you get a phone call with your results. And then you have to figure out a good quarantine system, but idle hotels may welcome the business. Combine it with universal masking and you can probably run a 90% economy.

I think they would have to be spit into tubes that had chemical to stabilize the viral RNA.

https://www.dnagenotek.com/US/products/c...E-100.html

That one is for mRNA but would probably stabilize viral RNA as well.

BC

[dabigv13]

From the article, they used plain sterile urine collection cups, transported to the lab at room temperature within 5 hours. I think the best way to do this would be a drive up system where you collect the cup, go to your car and spit in the cup, and then drop off the sample at a collection window.

[dabigv13]

From the article, they used plain sterile urine collection cups, transported to the lab at room temperature within 5 hours. I think the best way to do this would be a drive up system where you collect the cup, go to your car and spit in the cup, and then drop off the sample at a collection window.

[magnus]

I think the best way to do this would be a drive up system where you collect the cup, go to your car and spit in the cup, and then drop off the sample at a collection window.

This sounds like a mess waiting to happen.   Have you seen the average person try to spit?  Worse accuracy than peeing (which makes some sense since they've been practicing peeing their whole life, albeit into a big target) and definitely with less success (stay clear of your shirt!).  

Humorous scene aside,  I hope this does prove to be an effective alternative. (As I've been practicing my spits since childhood.  Non tissue nose blowing on the other hand, I dunno how the pros do it)

[magnus]

I think the best way to do this would be a drive up system where you collect the cup, go to your car and spit in the cup, and then drop off the sample at a collection window.

This sounds like a mess waiting to happen.   Have you seen the average person try to spit?  Worse accuracy than peeing (which makes some sense since they've been practicing peeing their whole life, albeit into a big target) and definitely with less success (stay clear of your shirt!).  

Humorous scene aside,  I hope this does prove to be an effective alternative. (As I've been practicing my spits since childhood.  Non tissue nose blowing on the other hand, I dunno how the pros do it)

[stupac2]

I think the best way to do this would be a drive up system where you collect the cup, go to your car and spit in the cup, and then drop off the sample at a collection window.

This sounds like a mess waiting to happen.   Have you seen the average person try to spit?  Worse accuracy than peeing (which makes some sense since they've been practicing peeing their whole life, albeit into a big target) and definitely with less success (stay clear of your shirt!).  

Humorous scene aside,  I hope this does prove to be an effective alternative. (As I've been practicing my spits since childhood.  Non tissue nose blowing on the other hand, I dunno how the pros do it)

I took one of those genetic screening things as part of our current pregnancy, and getting the spit into the tube wasn't particularly difficult, but generating the volume needed was surprisingly hard. And that was just looking at my DNA, how much do you need if you're trying to find some viral RNA amid all the other stuff?

[stupac2]

I think the best way to do this would be a drive up system where you collect the cup, go to your car and spit in the cup, and then drop off the sample at a collection window.

This sounds like a mess waiting to happen.   Have you seen the average person try to spit?  Worse accuracy than peeing (which makes some sense since they've been practicing peeing their whole life, albeit into a big target) and definitely with less success (stay clear of your shirt!).  

Humorous scene aside,  I hope this does prove to be an effective alternative. (As I've been practicing my spits since childhood.  Non tissue nose blowing on the other hand, I dunno how the pros do it)

I took one of those genetic screening things as part of our current pregnancy, and getting the spit into the tube wasn't particularly difficult, but generating the volume needed was surprisingly hard. And that was just looking at my DNA, how much do you need if you're trying to find some viral RNA amid all the other stuff?

[OutsiderFan]

I heard about the saliva test from Rutgers last week watching the NJ Governor. Said it had to be taken to lab for analysis, so it wasn't the on-site, instant or almost instant result panacea we all seek, so didn't get too excited, but if it doesn't require swabs or the same re-agents in short supply for other tests, could be a game changer.

On a different note about testing... There is a Doc on the Cal Rivals board who works in a major L.A. hospital. Yesterday he made this post:

Some worrisome things. We’ve had some patients that clearly have COVID that didn’t test positive til we took Tracheal samples. Not the standard nasopharyngeal swabs. Like from WAY down your windpipe. I’m pretty sure we have operated on several patients the last week that were “covid negative” but probably not. In fact I know we did a couple who eventually got tracheal swabs and were in fact positive. Blech. The serologic tests need to be independently verified. We’ve been goofing off with some and they look like someone repackaged pregnancy tests and sold them as “COVID” tests. Profiteering sons of bitches should be strung up.

Anyways. They are gonna start up some elective procedural stuff soon. Will see how this pans out.

[OutsiderFan]

I heard about the saliva test from Rutgers last week watching the NJ Governor. Said it had to be taken to lab for analysis, so it wasn't the on-site, instant or almost instant result panacea we all seek, so didn't get too excited, but if it doesn't require swabs or the same re-agents in short supply for other tests, could be a game changer.

On a different note about testing... There is a Doc on the Cal Rivals board who works in a major L.A. hospital. Yesterday he made this post:

Some worrisome things. We’ve had some patients that clearly have COVID that didn’t test positive til we took Tracheal samples. Not the standard nasopharyngeal swabs. Like from WAY down your windpipe. I’m pretty sure we have operated on several patients the last week that were “covid negative” but probably not. In fact I know we did a couple who eventually got tracheal swabs and were in fact positive. Blech. The serologic tests need to be independently verified. We’ve been goofing off with some and they look like someone repackaged pregnancy tests and sold them as “COVID” tests. Profiteering sons of bitches should be strung up.

Anyways. They are gonna start up some elective procedural stuff soon. Will see how this pans out.

[magnus]

On a different note about testing... There is a Doc on the Cal Rivals board who works in a major L.A. hospital. Yesterday he made this post:

Some worrisome things. We’ve had some patients that clearly have COVID that didn’t test positive til we took Tracheal samples. Not the standard nasopharyngeal swabs. Like from WAY down your windpipe. I’m pretty sure we have operated on several patients the last week that were “covid negative” but probably not. In fact I know we did a couple who eventually got tracheal swabs and were in fact positive. Blech. The serologic tests need to be independently verified. We’ve been goofing off with some and they look like someone repackaged pregnancy tests and sold them as “COVID” tests. Profiteering sons of bitches should be strung up.

Anyways. They are gonna start up some elective procedural stuff soon. Will see how this pans out.

This is what I was wondering about in the "yeah, testing" thread. How accurate are the different test sample techniques?  We here about false negative values for the testing equipment, but I don't believe it factors in what percentage of the time you can get a good enough sample to test from the various sampling techniques. (please tell me I'm wrong)

[magnus]

On a different note about testing... There is a Doc on the Cal Rivals board who works in a major L.A. hospital. Yesterday he made this post:

Some worrisome things. We’ve had some patients that clearly have COVID that didn’t test positive til we took Tracheal samples. Not the standard nasopharyngeal swabs. Like from WAY down your windpipe. I’m pretty sure we have operated on several patients the last week that were “covid negative” but probably not. In fact I know we did a couple who eventually got tracheal swabs and were in fact positive. Blech. The serologic tests need to be independently verified. We’ve been goofing off with some and they look like someone repackaged pregnancy tests and sold them as “COVID” tests. Profiteering sons of bitches should be strung up.

Anyways. They are gonna start up some elective procedural stuff soon. Will see how this pans out.

This is what I was wondering about in the "yeah, testing" thread. How accurate are the different test sample techniques?  We here about false negative values for the testing equipment, but I don't believe it factors in what percentage of the time you can get a good enough sample to test from the various sampling techniques. (please tell me I'm wrong)

[Goose]

I heard about the saliva test from Rutgers last week watching the NJ Governor. Said it had to be taken to lab for analysis, so it wasn't the on-site, instant or almost instant result panacea we all seek, so didn't get too excited, but if it doesn't require swabs or the same re-agents in short supply for other tests, could be a game changer.

On a different note about testing... There is a Doc on the Cal Rivals board who works in a major L.A. hospital. Yesterday he made this post:

Some worrisome things. We’ve had some patients that clearly have COVID that didn’t test positive til we took Tracheal samples. Not the standard nasopharyngeal swabs. Like from WAY down your windpipe. I’m pretty sure we have operated on several patients the last week that were “covid negative” but probably not. In fact I know we did a couple who eventually got tracheal swabs and were in fact positive. Blech. The serologic tests need to be independently verified. We’ve been goofing off with some and they look like someone repackaged pregnancy tests and sold them as “COVID” tests. Profiteering sons of bitches should be strung up.

Anyways. They are gonna start up some elective procedural stuff soon. Will see how this pans out.

Good catch! There have been reports of this problem from other countries as well, so it is essentially certain it happens. How often it happens is as far as I know totally up in the air. It could be 1 in a million or 1 in a thousand or? We are all in search of certainty. Unfortunately, there are lots of unknowns in this COVID-19 epidemic, and that isn't changing very fast it seems.

[Goose]

I heard about the saliva test from Rutgers last week watching the NJ Governor. Said it had to be taken to lab for analysis, so it wasn't the on-site, instant or almost instant result panacea we all seek, so didn't get too excited, but if it doesn't require swabs or the same re-agents in short supply for other tests, could be a game changer.

On a different note about testing... There is a Doc on the Cal Rivals board who works in a major L.A. hospital. Yesterday he made this post:

Some worrisome things. We’ve had some patients that clearly have COVID that didn’t test positive til we took Tracheal samples. Not the standard nasopharyngeal swabs. Like from WAY down your windpipe. I’m pretty sure we have operated on several patients the last week that were “covid negative” but probably not. In fact I know we did a couple who eventually got tracheal swabs and were in fact positive. Blech. The serologic tests need to be independently verified. We’ve been goofing off with some and they look like someone repackaged pregnancy tests and sold them as “COVID” tests. Profiteering sons of bitches should be strung up.

Anyways. They are gonna start up some elective procedural stuff soon. Will see how this pans out.

Good catch! There have been reports of this problem from other countries as well, so it is essentially certain it happens. How often it happens is as far as I know totally up in the air. It could be 1 in a million or 1 in a thousand or? We are all in search of certainty. Unfortunately, there are lots of unknowns in this COVID-19 epidemic, and that isn't changing very fast it seems.